On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:35:58PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:07:05 +0100, Patrice wrote: > > > I may be remebering wrong, but an argument for bodhi against those who > > wanted a simpler push mechanism (like wwhat was in the fedora extra days) > > and argued that bodhi will add more unecessary delays was that there > > always was the possibility to push to stable for packagers. > > Doesn't sound right. FE could push to stable always and much more quickly, > too. What was missing was a convenient interface for packagers which they > could use to decide between testing and stable or whether not to push a > build at all. It was necessary to submit special requests by email, since > by default every new build would become a test update. Packagers wanted > more control, and some even wanted no (!) delays by means of automatically > pushing to the repos. Myabe I didn't explained myself correctly, but I exactly wanted to say what you are saying too. People used to pushing to stable quickly in FE days wanted to avoid as much as possible delays in bodhi, and part of the delay is avoided by pushing directly to stable. Removing this possibility would be a regression, then which is avoided if it is possible to push to stable directly. -- Pat -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
